The Geneva Convention, victim of American Abuse; it's too "vague" says the President. Solution? President Bush has undertaken the responsibility to ammend, define and dictate the application of certian parts of the Convention as it applies to American actions.

At first I thought it was a bit much, calling President Bush "the devil" at the UN address, but you really have to wonder...

The Geneva Convention was defined for proper upkept nations to conduct war in a gentlemanly fashion. There is nothing gentlemanly about terroism. :p

Bah. I did that a long, long time ago in Sim City.

'And that Article Three says there shall be no outrages upon human dignity. Well, it's.. erm.. uhm... too vauge. Outrages upon human dignity can be interpretted in so many ways.'

'And so shall the Supreme Court hand the terrorists the key to America, or will President Bush get to connect the electrodes of freedom to the testicles of terrorism!'

God Bless Jon Stewart. :P

Park, that's a weak excuse and you know it. To make excuses for American ratification of a International Protocol (the Genevea Conventions) which are supported by roughly 160 countries...

I have to say something. AS a German, as a former soldier, as the descendant of many warriors, as a gentleman - I must.

The Geneva convention applies to combatans in parts and civilins in parts. Terrorism, or by that note irregular forces, are not enw to warfare. When Germany/Prussia took France in 1870-1871 there was a group known as the Franc Tieurs. They were irregular combatants - they were unrecognized civilian militia. They were treated accordingly by the Prussian Army, which on all other notes kept scrupulously to the rules of war. The French Government, despite its mistakes could not defend the Franc Tierus as it did not condone their existence. They were partisans. Combatants designated as partisans may be shoot out of hand. The Prussians for their part quelled public outcry in Berlin when the French shelled Saarbrucken - -the Military defended these actions of its enemy stating that troops were in the city and it was therefore neccessary and proper to attack it.

There was a time when nations could act independently but still remain united on the proper conduct of affairs. Sadly, that day is gone.

My views on irregular combatants? Simple - -the same as they were dealt with before. In Russia, excesses were inexcuseable for invader as well as invaded, and this is not the place to dsicuss them. But partisans were shot as well they should have. Civilians who fought the Russians as Germany itself was besieged were likewise killed as insurgents. That was proper under the rules of war.

Does the United States have the right to do with as it pleases to insurgents - yes and no. The difference? I'll explain. If the United States wishes to annex and truly conquer Iraq and afghanistant and any other nation, then insurgents and irregular combatants can be dealt with according to precedence. However, if they wish to make a police action of it and not truly invade, then the insurgents are not truly rebelling against them, but against their own government. It is then an internal matter, one in which the US should not be involved.

The difference is verbage, I know. The problem is that the US is trying to do two things at once - - annex a country without doing so in name and form while enjoying the priveleges of a conquering state. It cannot be so. If they wish to execute insurgents and such, then they must assume the mantle of conqueror and all that is required as such.

For all the lives lost, money spent and time taken...

We may as well attempt to annex the middle east as it stands...

God Bless World War 3 and its many sins....


Declare the contries we occupy as our own, defend them and expand... Its easier to crush a regime and instill your own than it is to create a brand new democracy

The difference between summary execution and illegal persecution are vast. One hardly compares to the other.

The Bush administration aims for a day where-in the definition of both are subject to Presidential interpretation. So, when the day comes that you are anally violated by a prison guard and nightly subjected to abuses verbal and physical... expect no quarter. Nevermind formal prosecution or execution.

And to excuse a past act which has already been acknowledged as "politically incorrect" retroactivly is just fucking gay.

Intellectually wise, I'm inclined to agree with Telan, albeit for some more practical reasons. Aside from what he said...

The Geneva convention was designed in a time of conventional, modern warfare. It is a convention that applied equally to every nation. And so, among nations, it is a perfectly good treaty. But against terrorists or insurgents?

Insurgents and terrorists don't follow the Geneva convention. Insurgents and terrorists have execuated innocent civilians and posted the videos of the said executions on the Internet among other sources. A terrorist or insurgent has no care in the world regarding "human dignity or rights"; they blantantly are opposite of it by their very definition, as shown by their actions.

Applying a rule to one side while having the other not follow it is less than fair. It's a handicap. It is comparable to forcing Coalition troops to form ranks, march, and fire in volleys like soldiers from the 18th Century while the terrorists snipe them at them from rooftops.

In order to survive, one must adapt to the changes, to the landscape, to the circumstances. For those don't, it is extinction. The world is quite different from when the Geneva Convention was formed. The Geneva Convention going to have to have to adapt or at least be somewhat defined if it is to remain a practical doctrine given the new parameters and insurgement warfare which dominates the conflict zones of the Middle East (I do agree with the morals upon which the Geneva Convention was based on by the way).

I certainly don't agree with how some of the prisoners were treated, nor do I like the idea of a single person having that much power. But I think old ideas have to adapt and change according to the circumstances.

Idealistically, it would be preferable in my opinion if the nations were to convene and quickly draw up and ratify a modified version which pertains to the circumstances. But based on how sluggishly the UN takes to get agree on such matters like that, I think a temporarily stop-gap measure of the President of the United States making such an effort would be good, albeit it should be replaced by a multi-national version as soon as possible.

The UN is as spineless as the USPS, and if they tried such a thing nothing would ever get done.